The 202 is a female 303... it sounds very sweet, but it lacks the aggressive muscles. Like mentioned before, the sequencer is very similar to the MC-4, the one Vince Clarke used.

just to correct some faulty info here: Read the manual and you'll find out the accent can control the VFC (shift + accent toggle) and the accent works in either gate as well as env mode, just raise the accent volume... The 303 can be din/sync master if you remove the outer metal ring of the din plug. Comparing it to a minimoog or jupiter 8 makes no sense at all. If you want a 303, a mini, or a JP, just get one...

Overall the 202 is a lovely synth!

Rating: 3 out of 5
posted Friday-Mar-27-2009 at 13:41

Ingredient T
a hobbyist user
from United States
writes:

I've had my 202 for about a month and I like it a lot. It was a toss-up between this and the SH-101, but the 202 is such an adorable package, I really couldn't resist.

It's actually a pretty standard monosynth overall, but still packs plenty of punch. The PWM alone makes this synth worth every penny. "202 to Ravetown," indeed. It's got a rather screaming filter that can easily dial-in R2D2 in varying degrees of distress.

The sequencer is pretty easy to use, although it's not necessarily easy to keep track of your compositions as you're working on them. They aren't kidding when they say "keep a calculator handy"! I haven't tried controlling any external synths via CV, but it sounds like loads of fun.

However, I can't for the life of me understand why everyone makes such a big deal that the 202 has accent and programmable portamento, "just like the 303!!!"

On the 202, accented notes merely play louder than un-accented notes, and accent only functions when you put the VCA into "ENV" mode. If you have the VCA in "GATE" mode, the accent has no effect at all.

Worst of all, the Accent has no effect on the filter whatsoever. Forget the classic "wow" sound you get from the 303 when you drop the cutoff and crank the resonance and the accent amount.

And while it's nice that you can set portamento per step, it has a totally different character than the 303 slide.

Anyone hoping to get any decent 303 emulations out of the 202 needs a reality check. You might be able to get them to sound the same if you stick to the most basic tones, but once you start probing the individual character of each synth you will find that they are worlds apart.

With the 202, you are sacrificing character for versatility. But it still has character to spare, don't get me wrong. Just don't get the notion from other reviewers that you will be able to capture any of the signature tones of the 303.

Now, maybe with the Analogue Solutions modular kit installed... (>_<)

Rating: 5 out of 5
posted Friday-Mar-02-2007 at 04:13

Ingredient T
a hobbyist user
from United States
writes:

I've had my 202 for about a month and I like it a lot. It was a toss-up between this and the SH-101, but the 202 is such an adorable package, I really couldn't resist.

It's actually a pretty standard monosynth overall, but still packs plenty of punch. The PWM alone makes this synth worth every penny. "202 to Ravetown," indeed. It's got a rather screaming filter that can easily dial-in R2D2 in varying degrees of distress.

The sequencer is pretty easy to use, although it's not necessarily easy to keep track of your compositions as you're working on them. They aren't kidding when they say "keep a calculator handy"! I haven't tried controlling any external synths via CV, but it sounds like loads of fun.

However, I can't for the life of me understand why everyone makes such a big deal that the 202 has accent and programmable portamento, "just like the 303!!!"

On the 202, accented notes merely play louder than un-accented notes, and accent only functions when you put the VCA into "ENV" mode. If you have the VCA in "GATE" mode, the accent has no effect at all.

Worst of all, the Accent has no effect on the filter whatsoever. Forget the classic "wow" sound you get from the 303 when you drop the cutoff and crank the resonance and the accent amount.

And while it's nice that you can set portamento per step, it has a totally different character than the 303 slide.

Anyone hoping to get any decent 303 emulations out of the 202 needs a reality check. You might be able to get them to sound the same if you stick to the most basic tones, but once you start probing the individual character of each synth you will find that they are worlds apart.

With the 202, you are sacrificing character for versatility. But it still has character to spare, don't get me wrong. Just don't get the notion from other reviewers that you will be able to capture any of the signature tones of the 303.

Now, maybe with the Analogue Solutions modular kit installed... (>_<)

Rating: 5 out of 5
posted Friday-Mar-02-2007 at 04:10

DJ Calyx
writes:

Sorry, "Reality"!! Didn't mean to make you FREAK-OUT like that!! Can't say I've ever met a Jupiter-8. You really shouldn't cut down the 202 like that though. I think you took extreme ofense when I said that other Roland sliders sucked. LOOK, I didn't say that the MC-202 is BETTER than a Jupiter-8, or even that MC-202 has the best sliders. I just said it's amazing for a little plastic box made in the early eighties! Of course a $300.00, 2-pound peice of plastic isn't as versitile as an expensive, huge, rare, 16 oscillator beast. The MC-202 deserves better than a three out of five; just for price and versatility... EXCUSE ME FOR BEING STOKED ON THE MC-202!!!

If you want to argue something, how's this: Everybody's SO into Roland Junos; try to pass them off as REAL analog synths. WELL THEY'RE NOT!! And they never will be... HAHAHA!!!

Rating: 0 out of 5
posted Wednesday-Jul-14-2004 at 20:21

Reality
writes:

-Sh-101 does have portamento. -You speak of Junos and Jupiters like they're flimsy but in reality they are some of the best constructed of the time. Sure Juno 106s and Jupiter 6s have plastic sliders but Juno 6/60s and Jupiter 8s have solid, metal sliders that feel great. Even with the plastic sliders Jupiter 6s are bulletproof elsewhere, really a nice "hard" design. -The MC-202 only has one lfo waveform which greatly takes away from its sound generating possibilities. Furthermore the seq is a pain to use. One filter. One oscillator (plus its a CEM, not exactly known for character). -There is lag when using the CV. -I do like how it runs on batteries. Put it next to a Minimoog, Pro-1 or similar synth, however, and unless you're doing acid or dnb (which is can do well because of the self-oscillating filter) this synth starts not to look so versatile.